People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions

[Rajput Lion]

The Russians and Americans screwed up the nomenclature, so the definitions have to keep changing for 4th gen now. For example, MKI MLU itself is a 3 phase program, and each phase will have a set of next gen avionics that cannot be compared with the previous one, no different from Jaguar DARIN I/II and III. The difference between I and III is a whole generation in terms of capabilities. Which is why the IAF prefers to classify an aircraft's generations based on its capabilities.

Rafale case: IAF officers emphasise in Supreme Court need for 4th, 5th generation fighter jets

They told the bench that Sukhoi 30s is the latest to be inducted which is a 3.5 generation aircraft and said the IAF does not have fourth or fifth generation aircraft.

indianexpress.com

The CJI also asked the officer which generation aircraft are the LCA and Su-30MKI.

Chalapati said there is no clear definition of generation and as he has flied the LCA which according to him is three and half generation aircraft.

He said both LCA and Su-30MKI are three and half and fourth generation aircrafts respectively but the requirement of IAF at present is of four plus or fifth generations aircrafts.

It will be much more simpler between 5th and 6th.

At the time, LCA lacked BVR capability, so they considered it 3.5th gen instead of 4th. MKI is 4th because of BVR. And LCA Mk1A/Mk2 will be 4.5th gen, as well the Rafale. So the definitions in the IAF is quite clear cut.

HVT is part of the Russian lobby. He is against the Rafale because it hits HAL's bottomline and he works for HAL. And then, both HVT and HAL want MRFA cancelled in favour of ORCA. MRFA will also destroy HAL's monopoly. So there's an agenda behind his tweets, he's not sincere.

Mig-21 Bison has BVR in form of R-77. But it can't ever be put in same category as Tejas. In my opinion, BVR or no BVR, Tejas is always a 4th gen. Just like MKI a 4.5 gen. Rafale F-3R I that we've would be 4++ or 4.75 gen. But it's all very muddled. So, lets leave it at that.

 

[Rajput Lion]

There is no joint network in India, hardly even a network
Besides, how do you know that where there's a J16, there's a J20, and you know where J20 is and you can shoot him down? You're so confident

When you're delusional it's easy to be confident with BS claims that come out of his mouth.

Nice to see China/US bromance. Bravo

But to both of you. IAF is one of the most net-centric forces of the world. Very soon, our fighters would take input not only from ground, sea and air but from space too. And all of it is going to be fused to create a comprehensive picture of the battlespace. Go figure...

 

[randomradio]

Do you think the reason the PLAAF is so difficult to perform in the Aksai Chin region is the need to climb to the plateau? It seems that India needs this as well, otherwise the fighter jets taking off from Leh will not be fully loaded, and Leh is a valley airport with worse take-off and landing conditions than China

The requirement from Leh is only air defence and logistics. There are other airfields that are lower on the ground.

Hotan Airport is at 1424m elevation, and Srinagar Airport is at 1655m. Most of India's air bases are at less than 250m elevation, mostly 100m, whereas Tibetan airbases are 4000-4500m high. Their only use is air defence and logistics, like Leh.

 

[randomradio]

Mig-21 Bison has BVR in form of R-77. But it can't ever be put in same category as Tejas. In my opinion, BVR or no BVR, Tejas is always a 4th gen. Just like MKI a 4.5 gen. Rafale F-3R I that we've would be 4++ or 4.75 gen. But it's all very muddled. So, lets leave it at that.

Yes, as per the IAF, Mig-21 Bison is 4th gen in the A2A role. LCA Mk1 is today a 4th gen aircraft, wasn't the case in 2018.

That's why the IAF uses role-specific criteria to judge this rather than simply give an entire aircraft a single designation. So LCA Mk1 is 4th gen, but Jaguar is 4.5th gen in the strike role. It has a lot of stuff that's going into the LCA Mk2 and MKI MLU.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Yes, as per the IAF, Mig-21 Bison is 4th gen in the A2A role. LCA Mk1 is today a 4th gen aircraft, wasn't the case in 2018. That's why the IAF uses role-specific criteria to judge this rather than simply give an entire aircraft a single designation. So LCA Mk1 is 4th gen, but Jaguar is 4.5th gen in the strike role. It has a lot of stuff that's going into the LCA Mk2 and MKI MLU.

I am not in disagreement with you or IAF. What I'm saying is that this "generation" thing is such a complicated and dense topic that there isn't a clear cut answer.

Like having Relaxed Static Stability and features like Thrust Vectoring are also generational leap over previous generations. But if we weigh those then MKI would come out as the most advanced IAF aircraft. But we know that it isn't. Both Rafale and Tejas MK1A are ahead of it.

So, while IAF basing there generation thing with "operational capability" is quite understandable, USAF and RuAF have different criteria. There are no rights or wrongs here. Just different perspectives. That's it

 

[randomradio]

I am not in disagreement with you or IAF. What I'm saying is that this "generation" thing is such a complicated and dense topic that there isn't a clear cut answer.

Like having Relaxed Static Stability and features like Thrust Vectoring are also generational leap over previous generations. But if we weigh those then MKI would come out as the most advanced IAF aircraft. But we know that it isn't. Both Rafale and Tejas MK1A are ahead of it.

So, while IAF basing there generation thing with "operational capability" is quite understandable, USAF and RuAF have different criteria. There are no rights or wrongs here. Just different perspectives. That's it

The reasons are different. The IAF is doing it to clearly explain their position between different aircraft and their requirement for their own purposes. It's for bureaucrats, politicians, civilians, not for experts.

So when they said LCA Mk1 IOC is 3.5th gen, they pointed out that politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't unnecessarily pressure the IAF to buy more until it's upgraded with AESA and mid-air refuelling, hence the requirement is the 4.5th gen LCA Mk1A.

So they consider MKI as 4th gen, Rafale as 4.5th gen, FGFA as 5th gen and AMCA as 5.5th gen so they can allow themselves the leeway to have all these jets as options without other people asking stupid questions.

Russia and America work along the same lines, it's just for marketing and for civilians, politicians and bureaucrats to lap up.

Internally, the IAF uses a different system. An aircraft is considered, obsolete, outdated, current and advanced. So Mig-21 Bison, pre-DARIN III Jaguars and unupgraded M2000s are now considered outdated. MKI, LCA Mk1 and Mig-29UPG are considered current. M2000UPG, Jaguar DARIN III, and Rafale are considered advanced. And these things are determined by the capabilities of the adversary we are facing.

 

[Hydra]

This 4th gen business is very tricky. A lot of it is just marketing or political.

When the MKI came out, both India and Russia called it 4.5th gen and 4+. And it was indeed half a generation ahead of aircraft like the F-16 B52 and M2000 in some ways. But once the Rafale and Su-35 came into the picture, India downgraded MKI to 4th gen and the Russians started calling Su-35 4++. So the definition is flexible.

Rightfully, the Su-27 is 4th gen, MKI/Su-35 are 4.5th gen, Rafale/Typhoon are 5th gen and F-22/F-35 are 6th gen. Rafale and Typhoon had 50-100 times lower frontal RCS than 4th gen and could supercruise, so there's no way these capabilities are 4th gen.

But the Russians decided to call the F-22 5th gen instead of 6th gen as a marketing ploy, and that stuck because it suited the Americans too. What it did is give the Flanker, Fulcrum, Eagle and Viper false equivalence to the Rafale and Typhoon, when in fact Rafale and Typhoon were much more similar to the Su-47 Berkut and Mig 1.44, ie, a generation ahead. The Russians were pretty clever in that respect. So, now the French are just stuck with a "next gen" claim for Rafale.

In any case, LX1111 was correct about the Irbis-E being overhyped, but he's wrong about the Bars. Bars is obviously inferior to the Irbis-E, and of course all the big American radars on the F-22, F-15EX and F-35, also the Rafale's AESA, but it's still similar to smaller radars like the APG-83 and Uttam Mk1.

https://pilotnews.com/lockheed- tlmartin-f-16

The APG-83 has a maximum detection range of 160 nautical miles (nm) or 296 km against aerial targets. Against a 1m^2 radar cross section (RCS) target, the APG-83 has a range of approximately 72 nm (134.5 km) relative to the 38 nm (70 km) for the preceding APG-68(V)9.

When u call an aircraft as next generation, when it having ridiculous amount of difference in some area of existing aircrafts, not mere a linear evolution what you are seeing from mirage to rafale or su27 to 30/35 etc.

USAF used to call f22 as "4th gen stealth aircraft" during mid/later 2000s. So if you apply the same logic mow, fifth gen aircraft is yet to see the light. Probably the first true fifth gen aircraft will be USAF/USN NGAD.

Gen2-Aircraft with jet engine, a paradigm shift from existing propulsion
Gen3-Aircraft with Radar, reduce the importance of eyeball searching capabilities of pilot.
Gen4- Aircraft that flown by Computer, thus reduced the pilot load.
Rafake, mki, su27,f16s, f35,f22 are such aircraf.
Gen5- An aircraft probably using new type of weapons or Doesn't require any pilot in cockpit.


F22/35s are aircrafts just incorporated the the stealth from the existing F117 on a fourth gen aircraft technology.

 

[Hydra]

The Russians and Americans screwed up the nomenclature, so the definitions have to keep changing for 4th gen now. For example, MKI MLU itself is a 3 phase program, and each phase will have a set of next gen avionics that cannot be compared with the previous one, no different from Jaguar DARIN I/II and III. The difference between I and III is a whole generation in terms of capabilities. Which is why the IAF prefers to classify an aircraft's generations based on its capabilities.

Rafale case: IAF officers emphasise in Supreme Court need for 4th, 5th generation fighter jets

They told the bench that Sukhoi 30s is the latest to be inducted which is a 3.5 generation aircraft and said the IAF does not have fourth or fifth generation aircraft.

indianexpress.com

The CJI also asked the officer which generation aircraft are the LCA and Su-30MKI.

Chalapati said there is no clear definition of generation and as he has flied the LCA which according to him is three and half generation aircraft.

He said both LCA and Su-30MKI are three and half and fourth generation aircrafts respectively but the requirement of IAF at present is of four plus or fifth generations aircrafts.

It will be much more simpler between 5th and 6th.

At the time, LCA lacked BVR capability, so they considered it 3.5th gen instead of 4th. MKI is 4th because of BVR. And LCA Mk1A/Mk2 will be 4.5th gen, as well the Rafale. So the definitions in the IAF is quite clear cut.

HVT is part of the Russian lobby. He is against the Rafale because it hits HAL's bottomline and he works for HAL. And then, both HVT and HAL want MRFA cancelled in favour of ORCA. MRFA will also destroy HAL's monopoly. So there's an agenda behind his tweets, he's not sincere.

He is knowingly or unknowingly a part of indigenous weapon lobby

 

[randomradio]

When u call an aircraft as next generation, when it having ridiculous amount of difference in some area of existing aircrafts, not mere a linear evolution what you are seeing from mirage to rafale or su27 to 30/35 etc.

USAF used to call f22 as "4th gen stealth aircraft" during mid/later 2000s. So if you apply the same logic mow, fifth gen aircraft is yet to see the light. Probably the first true fifth gen aircraft will be USAF/USN NGAD.

Gen2-Aircraft with jet engine, a paradigm shift from existing propulsion
Gen3-Aircraft with Radar, reduce the importance of eyeball searching capabilities of pilot.
Gen4- Aircraft that flown by Computer, thus reduced the pilot load.
Rafake, mki, su27,f16s, f35,f22 are such aircraf.
Gen5- An aircraft probably using new type of weapons or Doesn't require any pilot in cockpit.


F22/35s are aircrafts just incorporated the the stealth from the existing F117 on a fourth gen aircraft technology.

Gens are better defined by capabilities. Anything with FBW can be flown by a computer, so that includes the F-16, and now the Jaguar DARIN III.

 

[LX1111]

In South Korea, they tested the jets in 5 categories, and Rafale won "excellent" in all 5, whereas the F-15 could only achieve "excellent" in two. But they still selected the F-15 because of politics. Dassault publicly said they will never participate in another Korea competition after that.





In Singapore, all 3 jets were pitted against 3 F-16s. Meaning, 1 vs 3, single scenario. Typhoon defeated all three opponents, Rafale defeated 1 and the F-15 lost to all 3. Typhoon was also the only jet that could go supersonic inside their airspace. But the F-15 won because at the time euro was 30% stronger than the USD, so the F-15 was extremely cheap. RSAF wanted the Typhoon, but the ministry chose the F-15.

I couldn't find the specific data at that time, but I found the specific situation of the Rafale fighter radar. For a target of 1 square meter, the detection range is 106.4KM and the tracking range is 80.4KM. It can be seen that the smaller radar aperture has a significant impact on performance.

 

[LX1111]

The requirement from Leh is only air defence and logistics. There are other airfields that are lower on the ground.

Hotan Airport is at 1424m elevation, and Srinagar Airport is at 1655m. Most of India's air bases are at less than 250m elevation, mostly 100m, whereas Tibetan airbases are 4000-4500m high. Their only use is air defence and logistics, like Leh.

It seems that relying on Xinjiang airport is enough to launch a large-scale aerial offensive, not inferior to India,

 

[randomradio]

I couldn't find the specific data at that time, but I found the specific situation of the Rafale fighter radar. For a target of 1 square meter, the detection range is 106.4KM and the tracking range is 80.4KM. It can be seen that the smaller radar aperture has a significant impact on performance.
View attachment 29196

That's accurate for RBE2 PESA. AESA has double that range. RBE2 AA is just a prototype, it uses American modules.

Against 1m2:
APG-66 detection range is 68Km.
APG-68 = 80Km
RBE2 PESA = 106Km
Bars-1 = 126Km
APG-83 = 135Km
Irbis-E = 151Km
RBE2 AESA = Potentially 200Km... Double that of PESA, as per advertisement. Almost two times more than Bars.

APG-83 is air-cooled, so it cannot operate at higher temperatures. APG-80 is much more capable because it's on a bigger airframe, Block 60, and is liquid cooled. And French cooling is superior to American.

 

[Hydra]

Gens are better defined by capabilities. Anything with FBW can be flown by a computer, so that includes the F-16, and now the Jaguar DARIN III.

F16 is a gen 4 aircraft.

When u call an aircraft as next generation, when it having ridiculous amount of difference in some area of existing aircrafts, not mere a linear evolution what you are seeing from mirage to rafale or su27 to 30/35 etc.

USAF used to call f22 as "4th gen stealth aircraft" during mid/later 2000s. So if you apply the same logic mow, fifth gen aircraft is yet to see the light. Probably the first true fifth gen aircraft will be USAF/USN NGAD.

Gen2-Aircraft with jet engine, a paradigm shift from existing propulsion
Gen3-Aircraft with Radar, reduce the importance of eyeball searching capabilities of pilot.
Gen4- Aircraft that flown by Computer, thus reduced the pilot load.
Rafake, mki, su27,f16s, f35,f22 are such aircraf.
Gen5- An aircraft probably using new type of weapons or Doesn't require any pilot in cockpit.


F22/35s are aircrafts just incorporated the the stealth from the existing F117 on a fourth gen aircraft technology.

Oops, its typo error.
"Rafale"

 

[randomradio]

It seems that relying on Xinjiang airport is enough to launch a large-scale aerial offensive, not inferior to India,View attachment 29197

The airfield coverage is fine in Xinjiang. But the airspace over Kashmir is too small for anything more than 1 or 2 strike missions at a time, which is defensible. And the distances are also too much from Xinjiang. The closest base to Leh is Hotan and even that's almost 400Km. So even attacking Leh is difficult.

 

[LX1111]

The airfield coverage is fine in Xinjiang. But the airspace over Kashmir is too small for anything more than 1 or 2 strike missions at a time, which is defensible. And the distances are also too much from Xinjiang. The closest base to Leh is Hotan and even that's almost 400Km. So even attacking Leh is difficult.

China's base strike aircraft is the JH7A, which also has a strike radius of 1000KM when carrying four KD88

Coupled with its own KD88 has a range of 280KM, it is easy to strike Indian Kashmir from Xinjiang airfields

 

[LX1111]

, as per advertisement.

As you mentioned, this is an advertisement, but its credibility is low. What I can check is that the RBE2 AA first used American components in the experiment, and then used Thales devices，I think the chart in South Korea uses mass-produced radars, which are French Thales components

 

[Rajput Lion]

As you mentioned, this is an advertisement, but its credibility is low. What I can check is that the RBE2 AA first used American components in the experiment, and then used Thales devices，I think the chart in South Korea uses mass-produced radars, which are French Thales components

Rafale's AESA can guide Meteor to its full 300+ kms range against a small RCS target. Don't underestimate it.

 

[randomradio]

China's base strike aircraft is the JH7A, which also has a strike radius of 1000KM when carrying four KD88View attachment 29202
Coupled with its own KD88 has a range of 280KM, it is easy to strike Indian Kashmir from Xinjiang airfields

The absolute range doesn't matter, it will be get intercepted easily.

And I've already said that PLAAF can only launch standoff missile strikes, not air strikes. Missile strikes won't be very effective.

 

[LX1111]

The absolute range doesn't matter, it will be get intercepted easily.

And I've already said that PLAAF can only launch standoff missile strikes, not air strikes. Missile strikes won't be very effective.

You can replace the KD88 with eight laser-guided bombs，Also, how did you intercept JH7A in Chinese airspace?It is nonsense that China can only use weapons outside the defense area,

 

[randomradio]

As you mentioned, this is an advertisement, but its credibility is low. What I can check is that the RBE2 AA first used American components in the experiment, and then used Thales devices，I think the chart in South Korea uses mass-produced radars, which are French Thales components

@Picdelamirand-oil

What do you think? He says RBE2-AA has a detection range of 140Km against 3m2 target, not PESA?

If the Korean numbers are correct, then RBE2 AESA would be between APG-79 and 81. So 150 or 160Km against 1m2. Then DRDO's claim that Uttam Mk2 has superior range than the Rafale's radar will be correct.